originally posted by: introvert
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the entire debate was rigged and Holt was unfairly biased.

We still got an excellent look at how Trump conducts himself, his on-the-fly decision making skills and his temperament. Needless to say, Trump blew
it on many different levels. He has a hard time thinking on his feet and addressing issues without pointing a finger at others.

He seems to take things very personally and that is not a good trait for someone that is potentially going to be highly scrutinized for the next 4-8
years.

That being said, the Trump apologists need to get a grip. You can whine and cry about the debate being rigged or biased all you like. That's just a
distraction and excuse for you not coming to grips with the reality that Trump got his ass handed to him.

I don't think he got his butt handed to him, but I do agree with most of your post.

Trump dodn't look good, regardless of if it was biased or not. I am all for people asking him tough questions, and seeing how he reacts to them. He
did poorly in my opinion.

Having said that, Hillary didn't do so well when Lauer asked her tough questions. I would have liked to have seen Holt challenge her to compare how
she reacts.

I didn't watch the debate. I did something more worthwhile with my time instead of watch them; play video games. I'm just making assumptions here;
plus I was curious this morning how the debate turned out. Looks like I didn't miss anything either. Just more of the same.

She was great in the debate. That doesn't make her a good person. She won't win my vote but between the two (which honestly makes me sad), she was the
one who showed the other doesn't belong in the White House.

Then you and I have a differing definition of what "great" is, because I saw someone who was competent at debating, but certainly wasn't great. She
was good...but considering the fact that she's done this before and prepped better than DonDon, I would have expected better.

Trump, for never having really done this before (I don't count the comical Republican debates) and having not done a ton of prep work, did okay for
himself. His problem is his personality--he always wants to talk over someone else or interrupt them to show his alpha-dogness, and in a debate like
this (for the office of the presidency), he needs to get that in check. He did okay in the first response that he gave, but then it got out of control
really quickly. There's nothing worse than someone who doesn't let someone else speak when it's their turn (and Hillary had her share of those
moments, too, although I think that it was in response to Trump).

I think what we saw with Hillary is about the top of her game as far as debating will go. Trump, on the other hand, has a lot of room to improve, and
if he actually can set aside his ego and allow himself to be taught how to debate, I think he might...maybe...possibly...be better than Hillary by the
end of it all. I just don't know if he can set aside his ego.

Mr. Trump, in turn, is approaching the debate like a Big Man on Campus who thinks his last-minute term paper will be dazzling simply because he
wrote it.

He has paid only cursory attention to briefing materials. He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers.
He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers.

With Mrs. Clinton largely devoting the next four days to mock debate sessions and drills in New York, and Mr. Trump hunkering down only on Sunday,
here is a scouting report on the two prospects and their training regimens for Monday’s face-off, according to advisers, allies and friends of both
candidates.

Before talking about Trump's inability to combat Clinton, how about addressing Trump's #ty debate prep work first?

I didn't watch the debate. I did something more worthwhile with my time instead of watch them; play video games. I'm just making assumptions
here.

What?

You wrote this to me five minutes ago and you didn't even watch?

She was definitely reading from notes. There is no rule against having them and Hillary actually cares about preparation. So I can say with reasonable
confidence that she brought notes to read from with her. I can also say that she probably DID rehearse some lines as well. Various points that she
made sure to say when the conversation will inevitabiliy veer in that direction.

She wasn't cleared. The corrupt FBI just suggested not pressing charges, then went on to expose all the lies and negligence showed by Hillary.
Why wasn't that questioned? Why isn't her negligent handling of classified materials not an issue?

There were lies and negligence, but no charges because the FBI is corrupt? Can you prove this - or is it an excuse to keep the ball in play?

I would love to hear you explain - in your own words - what crime she committed, and how the corrupt FBI was coerced into protecting her. I know this
has been done to death - and there is no answer that will satisfy The Powers That Be crowd

I also know we could start another thread focused just on this. Since this thread is about the debate - what question should she have been asked? I'm
being sincere. If you think Holt went easy on her - what would have been the better question/questions?

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Like I said. I find your mentality bizarre. You can take offense if you want, but I'm not planning on getting into a tired argument with you about how
Hillary is a liar backed up by your bandwagon appeal ("well see a lot of people believe it! It must be true!").

Mr. Trump, in turn, is approaching the debate like a Big Man on Campus who thinks his last-minute term paper will be dazzling simply because he
wrote it.

He has paid only cursory attention to briefing materials. He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers.
He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers.

With Mrs. Clinton largely devoting the next four days to mock debate sessions and drills in New York, and Mr. Trump hunkering down only on Sunday,
here is a scouting report on the two prospects and their training regimens for Monday’s face-off, according to advisers, allies and friends of both
candidates.

Before talking about Trump's inability to combat Clinton, how about addressing Trump's #ty debate prep work first?

Fabulous. This is only the third debate I watched this year. Makes me happier to disconnect from it, too. But I don't know why you responded that
Hillary "definitely" was using prepared notes if you didn't even watch. I was hoping for serious responses.

Declarative statements without a follow up don't really do much to make us agree with you.

It is an outsiders opinion . An opinion that holds just as much weight as yours .

I watched live from Australia too, and I have the same opinion as you. if it were to be an unbiased debate, trump was asked where are you taxes and
Hillary should of been asked about those meeting transcripts..... Or atleast questioned about the issues the other majority of American voters have
with Hillary like all the scandalous activities she always gets herself into.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Yesterday it was meant to be upto the debaters to bring up the tough issues...

Now that Trump didn't, it's the moderators fault.

I said before the debate that if he fumbled on the email-issue, I would hold him accountable. And I do.

How do you figure he fumbled? He brought it up, Holt got a 15 second answer about it from her, and then he moved on. Had Trump brought it up again,
everyone would be saying he beat a dead horse issue. It's a no win for Trump on most things. Seems reminiscent of Reagan in the 80's and obama in
2008.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
I just tried to read the transcript.

Was Trump drunk? Or high? I am sorry, I seem to live in a different world, as I can not understand why someone would talk in this way, this repetitive
style.

Just for example, I picked this per complete chance out of his speak:

Could I just finish? I think I should - you go to her website, she’s going to raise taxes 1.3 trillion dollars and look at her website. You know
what, it’s no different than this. She’s telling us how to fight ISIS. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I
don’t think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much.

WHAT? Or, in internet-terms: "WAT!?"

It was not an easy situation, Mr. Trump was in a highly stressful setting. No one expects pitchperfect, ready-to-print sentences with absolute
coherent thoughtprocesses in high detail all the time.

But Mr. Trump did this the whole time.

Yes, I listened to snippets of his talks in German news or broadcasts, but those were usually only some seconds and they seemed to convey that those
few sentences were keypoints which he just had to repeat and to emphasize.

But Mr. Trump does this about every paragraph. About every 30 seconds maybe?

I am the first to admit that *edit*my English as being not my mothers tongue does and will always have a lot of flaws.
But my braincells dedicated to linguistics are crying in pain.. Okay, that was a bit dramatic, but his rhetoric seems to be dedicated to appeal to an
uneducated audience which needs to be entertained in short sentences, repetitions of crucial points and seems to have the attention span of a
mayfly.

Okay, enough with the rant against Mr. Trump.

--> Vote third party. Why not Jill Stein?
*scnr*

He's correct, and sounded fine. Looks like you're reading out of context. It's extremely stupid to post your effing attack plan on a public website.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Yesterday it was meant to be upto the debaters to bring up the tough issues...

Now that Trump didn't, it's the moderators fault.

I said before the debate that if he fumbled on the email-issue, I would hold him accountable. And I do.

How do you figure he fumbled? He brought it up, Holt got a 15 second answer about it from her, and then he moved on. Had Trump brought it up again,
everyone would be saying he beat a dead horse issue. It's a no win for Trump on most things. Seems reminiscent of Reagan in the 80's and obama in
2008.

Because I had expectations on how he could effectively handle the email issues and he did not do that. Bringing it up ineffectively was worse than not
bringing it up, at all.

I wanted Trump to get Hillary to speak -- on the public record -- about a few issues concerning the email server because today and tomorrow, Congress
will be hearing from Combetta and Comey. LAST NIGHT, was his chance to get her on the record BEFORE those hearings.

All Trump had to do was be prepared with his comments and questions and take a bit of control. The candidates had 10-11 minutes, during each of the
six segments, to grill one another.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.